Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not surprised you would suggest that as a RWr....after all, once they are born, they are discardable and their welfare is no longer of concern to you.Soooo should kids have a say in divorce ?
I say when kids are involved in a divorce, the kids should be sent to Planned Parenthood where their body parts can be sold to the highest bidder. Free enterprise you know.
Further, since the Obama Administration and the Democrats wish to redistribute the wealth and tax the rich even more, the body parts of poor kids should be made readily available for purchase by the rich in order to provide for the children of the wealthy. After all, the wealthy will pass on their wealth to their children. This would always insure a crop of rich folks to continue to fleece. The poor will never contribute anything.
But it's all about they're YOURS.....the hell with all the others once they're born.I'm not surprised you would suggest that as a RWr....after all, once they are born, they are discardable and their welfare is no longer of concern to you.Soooo should kids have a say in divorce ?
I say when kids are involved in a divorce, the kids should be sent to Planned Parenthood where their body parts can be sold to the highest bidder. Free enterprise you know.
Further, since the Obama Administration and the Democrats wish to redistribute the wealth and tax the rich even more, the body parts of poor kids should be made readily available for purchase by the rich in order to provide for the children of the wealthy. After all, the wealthy will pass on their wealth to their children. This would always insure a crop of rich folks to continue to fleece. The poor will never contribute anything.
Yes. I sired three kids. Sent them all to college and just turned my business over to them. They are my responsibility and I am taking care of them very well. If everyone followed my example, it would be a better world. Now I'm retired and spoiling my seven grandkids.
But it's all about they're YOURS.....the hell with all the others once they're born.I'm not surprised you would suggest that as a RWr....after all, once they are born, they are discardable and their welfare is no longer of concern to you.Soooo should kids have a say in divorce ?
I say when kids are involved in a divorce, the kids should be sent to Planned Parenthood where their body parts can be sold to the highest bidder. Free enterprise you know.
Further, since the Obama Administration and the Democrats wish to redistribute the wealth and tax the rich even more, the body parts of poor kids should be made readily available for purchase by the rich in order to provide for the children of the wealthy. After all, the wealthy will pass on their wealth to their children. This would always insure a crop of rich folks to continue to fleece. The poor will never contribute anything.
Yes. I sired three kids. Sent them all to college and just turned my business over to them. They are my responsibility and I am taking care of them very well. If everyone followed my example, it would be a better world. Now I'm retired and spoiling my seven grandkids.
Thank you for proving my point, my friend.But it's all about they're YOURS.....the hell with all the others once they're born.I'm not surprised you would suggest that as a RWr....after all, once they are born, they are discardable and their welfare is no longer of concern to you.Soooo should kids have a say in divorce ?
I say when kids are involved in a divorce, the kids should be sent to Planned Parenthood where their body parts can be sold to the highest bidder. Free enterprise you know.
Further, since the Obama Administration and the Democrats wish to redistribute the wealth and tax the rich even more, the body parts of poor kids should be made readily available for purchase by the rich in order to provide for the children of the wealthy. After all, the wealthy will pass on their wealth to their children. This would always insure a crop of rich folks to continue to fleece. The poor will never contribute anything.
Yes. I sired three kids. Sent them all to college and just turned my business over to them. They are my responsibility and I am taking care of them very well. If everyone followed my example, it would be a better world. Now I'm retired and spoiling my seven grandkids.
Somehow you imagine in your little mind that they are my responsibility? Even God doesn't hold me accountable for the actions of others. Are you claiming you are a higher authority than God?
Thank you for proving my point, my friend.But it's all about they're YOURS.....the hell with all the others once they're born.I'm not surprised you would suggest that as a RWr....after all, once they are born, they are discardable and their welfare is no longer of concern to you.I say when kids are involved in a divorce, the kids should be sent to Planned Parenthood where their body parts can be sold to the highest bidder. Free enterprise you know.
Further, since the Obama Administration and the Democrats wish to redistribute the wealth and tax the rich even more, the body parts of poor kids should be made readily available for purchase by the rich in order to provide for the children of the wealthy. After all, the wealthy will pass on their wealth to their children. This would always insure a crop of rich folks to continue to fleece. The poor will never contribute anything.
Yes. I sired three kids. Sent them all to college and just turned my business over to them. They are my responsibility and I am taking care of them very well. If everyone followed my example, it would be a better world. Now I'm retired and spoiling my seven grandkids.
Somehow you imagine in your little mind that they are my responsibility? Even God doesn't hold me accountable for the actions of others. Are you claiming you are a higher authority than God?
It must be true if you making your points in ALL CAPS! lol
I love that you felt compelled to start another thread based solely on a copy and paste quote of yours from another thread. I guess the 39 other threads on this exact same topic you've started were not getting the desired traffic.
Meanwhile, gay marriage is legal in all 50 states and all you can do is piss in the wind.
Paint, noting that "gay marriage" does not provide children with both a mother and father is not paranoia. It is cold, hard, immutable fact.
Interesting, someone voted to strip children of a vital necessity in order to prop up "gay marraige".
Inspired here: The South's Last, Desperate Stand from post #255
The Argument Justifying Obergefell...in a nutshell (thank you for your concise distillation Dana):
The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying....So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about....The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.
Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.
If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.
The Opposing Argument: (All Parties Weren't Present At Obergefell)
Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.
So, there were more parties to the Obergefell proposed contract revision. Only they weren't invited to the legal vacuum. Instead, they were illegally omitted from the Proceedings, to their demise. And, no contract involving kids implicitly, ESPECIALLY THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WHICH WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THEM EXACTLY FROM CONDITIONS CREATED IN OBERGEFELL..may exist that exists to the detriment of children and their vital needs.
Sorry:Besides, any such contract that strips children of a vital component of their lives is void upon its face; REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT CHILDREN ARE EVEN AN IMPLICIT PART OF THAT CONTRACT. So, describe to me which gay male marriage provides a girl with a mother? And describe to me which lesbian marriage provides a boy with a father? Neither? They are void. Everywhere. So says necessities re: infants and contract law...a most ancient and pernicious case-law supported bedrock of American law..
Again: THE REASON MARRIAGE WAS CREATED WAS NOT FOR ADULTS, IT WAS FOR CHILDREN AND SOCIETY. CHILDREN AND SOCIETY WERE OVERRULED AND A NEW CONTRACT CREATED WHICH ENTIRELY ERASED THE MEANING (TO CHILDREN AND SOCIETY'S DETRIMENT) OF THE WORD "MARRIAGE" AS THE WORLD HAD UNDERSTOOD IT FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS. Which is illegal. Obergefell was a mistrial. All parties to a case, particularly one where they share a contract, must have representation. This did not happen in Obergefell. It was a Kangaroo Court: a Shutout.
Anticipated Rebuttal: (Ginsburg, Kennedy, Loving v Virginia)
"Gay people were cohabitating with children anyway. We just wanted to make it legal so their children could enjoy recognition and benefits of marriage. Ginsburg cited how "separate but equal" with regards to civil unions was unfair. Kennedy echoed that for children's sake"
Opposition to Anticipated Rebuttal: (Fish aren't Land Mammals)
Remember WHY marriage was created. It's legal skeleton is "to provide children with both a mother and father"..to remedy all the inferior situations children found and find themselves in for their and society's ultimate reward. Requiring that gays share marriage is like requiring that fish be acknowledged as land mammals. Civil Unions were enough. More than enough. No matter what any court does, it will not remove the stigma and detriment to children trapped in gay unions that strips them of both a mother and father. That stigma and detriment remain to them whenever anyone sees them in public with "their two parents". The lack is undeniable and evident upon its face.
You do not erase the meaning of the existence of a thing which has firm and immutable outlines in order to include things outside of it which don't even remotely fit the interior of its space. And with marriage, this means IT CAN NEVER MEAN ANYTHING ELSE BUT MAN/WOMAN for the very reason it was created.
Loving v Virginia fit within those lines because the ancient skeleton of marriage "mother and father for children" was not in any way disrupted. So this is exactly how Obergefell cannot and could not use Loving to justify its existence. It defies a physical reality and the meaning of the creation of the word marriage...and the persistent intent behind that creation which has held fast for supremely excellent reasons for over a thousand years.
Divorce: (Children Still Need Mother & Father)
Divorce is granted, reluctantly, where the conditions for children has become intolerable. Again, the existence of divorce does not negate the reason for marriage. It is still about the children's best interest. And indeed, family courts spend a great deal of time worrying about the children of divorce and maintaining that vital mother/father contact after divorce. There being the reaffirmation of the marriage inception: to preserve a mother and father for children.. Later, after divorce, a state entices the estranged mother and father to "try again for the sake of the children" to find a new complimentary-gender spouse to provide that happy home for the kids.
For those who doubt that a lack of a mother or father is detrimental to children, please read the link in my signature of children raised in gay homes and their amicus briefs describing their suffering the lack of the complimentary gender. Also, read this link which is the largest survey of its kind of youth adjustment. This particular survey focused on the lack of the gender-specific role model...about a daily mother or father figure missing in youths' lives: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
TRANSLATION: I can't rebut anything you said, or find anything wrong with it, but I hate it anyway. So I'll insult you and smear you instead, in hopes that somebody somewhere will believe me instead of you.What a whole lot of Silhouette made up crap.
All legally irrelevant, despite what the voices in her head tell her.
TRANSLATION: I can't rebut anything you said, or find anything wrong with it, but I hate it anyway. So I'll insult you, smear you, call you names, and try to keep you from continuing the discussion instead, in hopes that somebody somewhere will believe me instead of you.Give it up, little homosexual paranoid. You lost, and society has already moved on.
Gay Marriage is a done deal. get over it.TRANSLATION: I can't rebut anything you said, or find anything wrong with it, but I hate it anyway. So I'll insult you, smear you, call you names, and try to keep you from continuing the discussion instead, in hopes that somebody somewhere will believe me instead of you.Give it up, little homosexual paranoid. You lost, and society has already moved on.
TRANSLATION: I can't rebut anything you said, or find anything wrong with it, but I hate it anyway. So I'll insult you and smear you instead, in hopes that somebody somewhere will believe me instead of you.What a whole lot of Silhouette made up crap.
All legally irrelevant, despite what the voices in her head tell her.
No, not if their parents are man/woman father/mother. Gay marriage permanently removes those necessities by its very structure. There, now you see what "gay marriage" has to do with kids...or rather, how it impacts kids...for life..I still don't see what gay marriage has to do wh kids . Would u rather the kids have unmarried parents in their house ?
This was laughable the first time you posted itInspired here: The South's Last, Desperate Stand from post #255
The Argument Justifying Obergefell...in a nutshell (thank you for your concise distillation Dana):
The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying....So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about....The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.
Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.
If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.
The Opposing Argument: (All Parties Weren't Present At Obergefell)
Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.
So, there were more parties to the Obergefell proposed contract revision. Only they weren't invited to the legal vacuum. Instead, they were illegally omitted from the Proceedings, to their demise. And, no contract involving kids implicitly, ESPECIALLY THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WHICH WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THEM EXACTLY FROM CONDITIONS CREATED IN OBERGEFELL..may exist that exists to the detriment of children and their vital needs.
Sorry:
Again: THE REASON MARRIAGE WAS CREATED WAS NOT FOR ADULTS, IT WAS FOR CHILDREN AND SOCIETY. CHILDREN AND SOCIETY WERE OVERRULED AND A NEW CONTRACT CREATED WHICH ENTIRELY ERASED THE MEANING (TO CHILDREN AND SOCIETY'S DETRIMENT) OF THE WORD "MARRIAGE" AS THE WORLD HAD UNDERSTOOD IT FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS. Which is illegal. Obergefell was a mistrial. All parties to a case, particularly one where they share a contract, must have representation. This did not happen in Obergefell. It was a Kangaroo Court: a Shutout.
Anticipated Rebuttal: (Ginsburg, Kennedy, Loving v Virginia)
"Gay people were cohabitating with children anyway. We just wanted to make it legal so their children could enjoy recognition and benefits of marriage. Ginsburg cited how "separate but equal" with regards to civil unions was unfair. Kennedy echoed that for children's sake"
Opposition to Anticipated Rebuttal: (Fish aren't Land Mammals)
Remember WHY marriage was created. It's legal skeleton is "to provide children with both a mother and father"..to remedy all the inferior situations children found and find themselves in for their and society's ultimate reward. Requiring that gays share marriage is like requiring that fish be acknowledged as land mammals. Civil Unions were enough. More than enough. No matter what any court does, it will not remove the stigma and detriment to children trapped in gay unions that strips them of both a mother and father. That stigma and detriment remain to them whenever anyone sees them in public with "their two parents". The lack is undeniable and evident upon its face.
You do not erase the meaning of the existence of a thing which has firm and immutable outlines in order to include things outside of it which don't even remotely fit the interior of its space. And with marriage, this means IT CAN NEVER MEAN ANYTHING ELSE BUT MAN/WOMAN for the very reason it was created.
Loving v Virginia fit within those lines because the ancient skeleton of marriage "mother and father for children" was not in any way disrupted. So this is exactly how Obergefell cannot and could not use Loving to justify its existence. It defies a physical reality and the meaning of the creation of the word marriage...and the persistent intent behind that creation which has held fast for supremely excellent reasons for over a thousand years.
Divorce: (Children Still Need Mother & Father)
Divorce is granted, reluctantly, where the conditions for children has become intolerable. Again, the existence of divorce does not negate the reason for marriage. It is still about the children's best interest. And indeed, family courts spend a great deal of time worrying about the children of divorce and maintaining that vital mother/father contact after divorce. There being the reaffirmation of the marriage inception: to preserve a mother and father for children.. Later, after divorce, a state entices the estranged mother and father to "try again for the sake of the children" to find a new complimentary-gender spouse to provide that happy home for the kids.
For those who doubt that a lack of a mother or father is detrimental to children, please read the link in my signature of children raised in gay homes and their amicus briefs describing their suffering the lack of the complimentary gender. Also, read this link which is the largest survey of its kind of youth adjustment. This particular survey focused on the lack of the gender-specific role model...about a daily mother or father figure missing in youths' lives: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
No, not if their parents are man/woman father/mother. Gay marriage permanently removes those necessities by its very structure. There, now you see what "gay marriage" has to do with kids...or rather, how it impacts kids...for life..I still don't see what gay marriage has to do wh kids . Would u rather the kids have unmarried parents in their house ?
TRANSLATION: When that doesn't work, I'll try again and again to get you to stop discussing it.Gay Marriage is a done deal. get over it.TRANSLATION: I can't rebut anything you said, or find anything wrong with it, but I hate it anyway. So I'll insult you, smear you, call you names, and try to keep you from continuing the discussion instead, in hopes that somebody somewhere will believe me instead of you.
Law of the landTRANSLATION: When that doesn't work, I'll try again and again to get you to stop discussing it.Gay Marriage is a done deal. get over it.TRANSLATION: I can't rebut anything you said, or find anything wrong with it, but I hate it anyway. So I'll insult you, smear you, call you names, and try to keep you from continuing the discussion instead, in hopes that somebody somewhere will believe me instead of you.
